Namibia and Kenya are the only African countries that benefit directly from the IRB, they get funding for World Cup qualification in Namibias case and for participation in the Sevens Series in Kenyas case.

Will be interesting to see if the IRB will change their mind on the Kenya v Portugal fixtures. Kenya was meant to host one test in November then a return fixture in Lisbon a week later. The IRB may or rather should change it to Namibia.

Karlos, the IRB is dominated by the British Isles and Ireland, France, SA and Australasia. They care nothing for anyone but themselves.

The World Cup, however, is a huge money-spinner for them, and thus the IRB had channeled some of these funds into the development of 'lower-tier' rugby. That's something, though plainly it hasn't been enough. Their biggest failing has been to stratify rugby in such a manner as to deny 'lower-tier' teams experience against 'upper-tier' teams, which is like depriving your students of lessons to prepare for a big exam.

If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

& by the way, the All Blacks have played Namibia twice before - when it was still part of South Africa, known as South West Africa, and competed in the Currie Cup. In 1960 the tourists won 27-3 at Windhoek (a fairly lopsided result for those times), and in 1970 by 16-0.

In 1976 the All Blacks played a combined Northern Cape/South West Africa XV in Uppington, prevailing 34-17 - although the match was remembered more for its drama than the scoreline. One remarkable occurrence was the reversal of a send-off decision by the referee, who yielded to All Blacks captain Frank Oliver's pleas and allowed legendary Maori 'warrior' Billy Bush to remain on the pitch after he (having been wound up beyond breaking point by the niggly opposition) had stomped on the head of one of the locals, then chased and attacked another - right in front of a stand full of school children.

If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

Karlos, the IRB is dominated by the British Isles and Ireland, France, SA and Australasia. They care nothing for anyone but themselves.

Ah thats rubbish im afraid.

The IRb are doing a decent job.

Dont forget rugby is still a small sport, but is now growing rapdily. All the regions (Asia, South America, Africa, Europe) have their 5 nations tournaments...and the underlying leagues below them with prmotion and relegation. This helps teams develop.

Now whilst i do think more games between tier 1 and tier 2 teams would be better....we have to remember that apart from Georgia and Romania...most other games between Tier 1's and Tier 2's would result in some heavy scorelines which i personally dont think helps anyone.

I do believe a European tournament every 2 years would be great....but may be difficult to plan with top players already playing so many games. Maybe the tier 1 teams can send their 'A' Teams...like the Saxons and Wolfhounds etc.

I think the CAR champion should be awarded a home-test against the Springboks. Call it the 'African Championship.' Who cares if it's a blow-out? If they can meet them at the RWC, they should at least have the chance to find out what their up against beforehand, and making this an annual clash will also give them the chance to develop. That's not to say it will be Namibia every time, of course. In fact, four different countries would have had the chance to square up to the Boks in the last five years if this idea has been in place - and Namibia would not have been among them . . .

If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

Well, you might be right, but similar arguments were raised against continued involvement with the 'Woeful Wallabies' in the early 70s (by NZ), and against the entry of Italy into an expanded Nations. Of course, in both cases regular matches continued, and the results were that at the end of the 70s Australia inflicted a record defeat on the All Blacks, while Italy in 2000 won their 6 Nations opener and have proceeded to defeat all the other teams at least once except England.

Meanwhile, Romania were not admitted into that competition after stunning defeats of 5 Nations teams (includign the champions) in the 80s, and have not progressed at all, while Canada seems similarly to have suffered through relative isolation after showing so much promise toward the end of the amateur era.

As for the Emerging Boks, they were participating in CAR not so long ago. Not sure why that discontinued. Perhaps the participating teams wanted a genuine test rugby tournament.

I personally would like to see the winner rewarded with a home-test against the Boks. As stated, if it's good enough for them to meet in the RWC, then surely it's good enough before the RWC, and any other scenario merely serves to handicap them through lack of experience at the level required to succeed in the RWC.

If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

I agree with Sables...if say madagascar had edged out winners against the other 3 teams (Kenya, Namibia and Zimbabwe) and they had to play South Africa i could only forsee a car crash. That would just shatter any morale that the Madagascans had.

As it happens it was Zimbabwe and i really dont think at the moment they would relish a game v the Boks.

Lots of people are calling for more games between the different tiers. We need to be careful. As getting humped 70, 80, 90 + does nothing for any team.

There are more and more fixtures between the Tier 1 A teams like the Saxons, Wolfhounds etc and the tier 2 sides and this will continue and will improve the standard of the Tier 2 sides.

At the moment i would only see Georgia (with a couple not far off) as a Tier 2 side really capable of taking on most..(not all) of the Tier 1 teams and giving some a good game and not being royally thrashed by the others.

Some people want expension and development at a rediculously fast pace...but thats not going to happen.

Fair comments Madagascar v SA would be a car wreck. So maybe that kind of gamble wouldn't be appropriate. But I still think there is a case for SA to play a pre-season away match against the next best African team, however this may be resolved. In fact, why not just start an annual trophy match with regular RWC qualifiers Namibia, to be played at Windhoek, and help at least one other African nation develop. I remember when Namibia were beating Ireland and Italy and running the French and Welsh close. Unfortunately their sudden demise appears to have coincided with the end of Apartheid and subsequent exodus back across the border - presumably to be involved in a more professional rugby environment. If the Boks had committed to regular contacts with Namibia at all levels immediately upon their return to the international arena, they might have helped their neighbours retain the heady heights of the early 90s. But it's certainly not too late to help them. & once again, my main rationale here is that if its good enough to meet them at the RWC, it is absolutely good enough for them to meet between World Cups and at least help them to prepare for such encounters (instead of handicapping them as the current system clearly does).

I agree that we shouldn't encourage mismatches, but there needs to be a certain amount of opportunity for lower tier teams to encounter upper tier teams, or why else would we have a 20 team World Cup - where such fixtures are inevitable? Besides which, this is a tried and proven method of helping other teams develop. For example, the All Blacks persevered with the Bledisloe Cup even when the Wallabies were easy-beats (notably the early 70s), and the 5 Nations persevered with France even though the Tricolors required fully a decade to come up to speed. Such regular contacts eventually paid off and effectively determined the balance of power as we see it today.

If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

Geordiefalcon wrote:There are more and more fixtures between the Tier 1 A teams like the Saxons, Wolfhounds etc and the tier 2 sides and this will continue and will improve the standard of the Tier 2 sides.

At the moment i would only see Georgia (with a couple not far off) as a Tier 2 side really capable of taking on most..(not all) of the Tier 1 teams and giving some a good game and not being royally thrashed by the others.

Some people want expension and development at a rediculously fast pace...but thats not going to happen.

This comment is just really ignorant I'm afraid.

Who are the other sides that Italy or even France or Ireland would be "royally thrashing" by 70 points then? I assume you don't mean the Pacific Islanders. Canada, USA, Japan?

Oh yes, and the matches against "Saxons" and "Wolfhounds" can piss off. It's one of the biggest misapprehensions in world rugby that playing matches against them are so great, as nobody in either nation cares. England Saxons played USA at Glendale in 2009 in the Churchill Cup, Ireland got double the crowd into 5 figures. Nobody gives a crap about Emerging Ireland in the IRB Tbilisi Cup either for that matter.

Something I've commented on before. If the elite rugby playing nations are so precious that they have to refer to even a slightly below-strength national team as an 'A' team or name it after some kind of plant or animal or something, then claim that it wasn't a 'real' test on the off-chance they lose and it didn't really count, then they're taking themselves wayyy to seriously. Why not send a developmental team out there to play fixtures against emerging countries and make them official tests? So long as it puts more bums on seats. The All Blacks did in their first ever test against Japan, actually, and other nations have certainly done it too (while it has long been commonplace in other codes such as foodball). What do you think the Pacific Island, North America or Eastern European fans want to see: a meaningless game or an historical international against one of the elite playing nations?

If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

Geordiefalcon wrote:There are more and more fixtures between the Tier 1 A teams like the Saxons, Wolfhounds etc and the tier 2 sides and this will continue and will improve the standard of the Tier 2 sides.

At the moment i would only see Georgia (with a couple not far off) as a Tier 2 side really capable of taking on most..(not all) of the Tier 1 teams and giving some a good game and not being royally thrashed by the others.

Some people want expension and development at a rediculously fast pace...but thats not going to happen.

This comment is just really ignorant I'm afraid.

Who are the other sides that Italy or even France or Ireland would be "royally thrashing" by 70 points then? I assume you don't mean the Pacific Islanders. Canada, USA, Japan?

Oh yes, and the matches against "Saxons" and "Wolfhounds" can piss off. It's one of the biggest misapprehensions in world rugby that playing matches against them are so great, as nobody in either nation cares. England Saxons played USA at Glendale in 2009 in the Churchill Cup, Ireland got double the crowd into 5 figures. Nobody gives a crap about Emerging Ireland in the IRB Tbilisi Cup either for that matter.

I agree with this. The only way teams are going to get better is by playing bigger teams more regularly and there should always be a pathway to the top for any country. Matches against B teams in meaningless competitions mean nothing. What is the reward for winning these games?

The 6 Nations should become a 7 nations northern hemisphere tournament with annual relegation and promotion and be open to Europe, North America, North Africa and the Middle East

The Rugby Championship should become a 7 Nations southern hemispere tournament with annual relegation and promotion and be open to South America, South Africa, The Pacific Islands and Asia Pacific

Rowan wrote:Why not send a developmental team out there to play fixtures against emerging countries and make them official tests? So long as it puts more bums on seats. The All Blacks did in their first ever test against Japan, actually,

Completely off topic as umm, this thread is about AFRICAN rugby but just to make sure what is being posted is factually correct - Actually Rowan you're wrong on the first time NZ went to Japan in 1987. Yes, the team was called the All Blacks but neither of the games were officially recognised by the NZRFU as tests (to clarify Japan did). Last year's game in Tokyo was the first game outside RWC games officially recognised as a test match by both unions. Probably wasn't a great example to use. Maybe last year's Wales team to Japan that was developmental yet was called Wales and whose games with Japan were official test matches is a better example of what you were trying to say?

Getting back on topic....Personally I'd love to see the Boks take on other African teams outside the RWC but at the moment there is too much of a gap between them and the rest. So you guys don't like Emerging this or such and such A that, but just maybe in this case an Emerging Boks/RSA A/Junior Boks team is a practical step to give the other African teams some experience against RSA teams, particularly if the other African team hosts.

That game is an exception. Quite frankly I grimaced (and probably so did quite a few other rugby fans) when the ABs were drawn with the African team. If one game has "serious injury possible" written all over it, this game is it. And with the Boks being ultra-physical, I think the possibility of the same happening in a full Boks v other African team game is also high enough to justify some caution before such an annual game is embarked upon. One Max Brito is quite enough thank you. At least one good thing about Namibia qualifying is that they are arguably the best physically equipped of the African teams, but still... Yes Namibia played the Boks in 2011 without serious injury but I consider that was good luck more than anything else. As much as I wanted Kenya to qualify, if they had, I seriously would've been praying before the game for no tragedy to take place.

Let's just remember Namibia is NOT a tier two rugby nation. They are NOT at the same level as Romania, Georgia, Japan, US, Canada & the Pac Is teams. It's fine that the top teams should be playing and going to those nations. They are becoming competitive and have better prepared & conditioned players. Namibia (and remember they're the best in Africa outside RSA) though is another case altogether IMO. They are better served in the short-term playing regular games with South African teams whether developmental national teams and/or provincial teams. That's the way Kenya is working and in the long-term it is likely to benefit them (if done well) and get them to a point where 1) they can make a RWC finals, and 2) they are possibly at a level they can justify playing the full Boks team without the danger hanging over such a game of their players being seriously harmed.

I agree and disagree - I think Africa 1 should get a test against Emerging Boks until they either beat them or run them close and then they should be offered a full test. It's a bit like the CONSUR finals where Uruguay & co get to play Jaguars or when billed as Argentina it's really home-based pumas only. Uruguay have never beaten Argentina under any name.

Good comments, guys. What about Nambia and Zimbabwe fielding a team (not the national team, but preferably including many of its players) in the Currie Cup (second division)? NZ does this in Australian club soccer - and they were the only unbeaten team at the 2006 WC .

If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?